Australian-Shepherd-Lovers.com All About Your Favorite Breed. Information and resources featuring sections on Australian Shepherd history, health, genetics, temperament, training and agility with directories of rescue organizations and breeders.
Dogs Win Big on Election Day with Historic Victory in Missouri
Fed up with their state’s reputation as the Puppy Mill Capital of America, Missourians hit the polls on Election Day to declare that enough is enough! On Tuesday, November 2, voters in the Show Me State passed the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which appeared on their ballots as Proposition B. (Although policy reform is most often generated through state legislatures, Prop B was a citizen supported initiative). It is an incredible victory, and one we hope will send a strong message to the governments of other states—namely, that the public wants better conditions for puppy mill dogs, and will take on the task of changing the law themselves if elected officials fail to act.
In the last three years, 15 states, including major puppy mill states such as Iowa, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania, have passed laws to crack down on puppy mills. However, in no other state were the stakes higher for puppy mill dogs than Missouri.
Missouri’s weak laws regulating commercial kennels have made it a haven for substandard breeders. As home to one-third of all the commercial dog breeding facilities in the U.S.—as many as the next three largest dog breeding states combined—Missouri supplies more than 40 percent of all puppies sold in pet stores nationwide. No matter where you live, there’s a good chance that the puppies in the window of your local pet store came from a Missouri puppy mill. Implementation of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act will provide welcome relief to tens of thousands of adult breeding dogs—not to mention the approximately one million puppies born in Missouri kennels every year.
The new Missouri law, which becomes effective in one year, requires that dogs at these large-scale facilities be provided with sufficient food and clean water, regular veterinary care, adequate housing and space, and access to regular exercise. And with passage of Proposition B, Missouri becomes the fifth state—joining Louisiana, Oregon, Virginia and Washington—to create a limit on the number of intact, adult breeder dogs a commercial dog breeder may keep.
“Tuesday’s passage of Proposition B reflects a landmark achievement in the ongoing fight against animal cruelty,” says ASPCA President & CEO Ed Sayres. “We are proud to have worked diligently on this campaign, and we celebrate this victory alongside the caring citizens of Missouri. The ASPCA is committed to working with local animal welfare groups to help breeders transition to the new humane standards and find loving homes for any displaced Missouri breeding dogs.”
The ASPCA wishes to thank our supporters all over the country for helping us advocate for Proposition B to your friends and family in Missouri. This victory is the culmination of 18 months of work for the ASPCA and our partners in Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, and it is proof that when we join together to use our voices for animals, we will be heard!
Multiple Puppy Mill Rescues in Missouri Highlight Need for Prop B
The ASPCA is currently on the ground in St. Clair County, MO, where we are managing the removal and transfer of 34 dogs from a puppy mill. The dogs were relinquished to Half-way Home Pet Rescue, the organization that originally contacted the ASPCA for assistance with the transfer. This rescue marks the third time in one week that the ASPCA has been contacted to help transfer dogs and puppies from Missouri puppy mills—as well as private residences—where owners have failed to provide adequate care for their animals.
“These incidents reinforce the need for Missourians to vote ‘yes’ on Proposition B,” says Tim Rickey, the ASPCA’s Senior Director of Field Investigations and Response. Also known as the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, Prop B aims to raise the standards of care for dogs in Missouri’s more than 3,000 commercial breeding facilities, which export more than 40 percent of all dogs sold in pet stores nationwide. If passed, Prop B would require Missouri’s large-scale breeders to limit the number of breeding females to 50, as well as enact common-sense standards such as requiring dogs to be provided with sufficient food and clean water, regular veterinary care, adequate housing and space, and access to regular exercise.
“Current Missouri regulations concerning puppy mills are not being enforced properly because they are vague, complicated and confusing,” says Kyle Held, the ASPCA’s Midwest Director of Field Investigations and Response and team leader of the recent Missouri rescues. “Breeding operations in clear violation of existing laws have been able to stay in business or regain their licenses after being cited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If Prop B passes, it will provide clear standards for the care of the dogs—and give local law enforcement officials the ability to enforce them.”
We Need Your Help!
The ASPCA strongly urges Missouri citizens to vote YES! on Prop B and transform your state from the puppy mill capital of the United States to a national leader in puppy mill reform.
Don’t live in Missouri, but still want to help? Please support puppy mill dogs by posting this article on your Facebook page or blog, or by visiting www.yesonpropb.com.
Missouri has a proposition on their ballot this November. It is not only important for the dogs in Missouri, but in the long run, important for dogs everywhere.
From the ASPCA website:
Proposition B proposes to vastly improve the lives of dogs in Missouri’s commercial breeding operations by limiting the number of breeding dogs to 50 per facility and requiring basic elements of humane care including clean water, regular exercise and adequate rest for female dogs between litters.
Proposition B is a citizen-sponsored, state ballot initiative to pass the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act and reduce the suffering of tens of thousands of dogs in Missouri’s puppy mills. Known as the “Puppy Mill Capital of America,” Missouri is home to an estimated 3,000 puppy mills—23% of the mills in the U.S. and far more than any other state—and is a leading source of puppies to other areas of the country.
Missourians for the Protection of Dogs /YES! on Prop B, a grassroots organization supported by the ASPCA, the Humane Society of Missouri, the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation and the Humane Society of the United States, gathered more than 190,000 signatures and secured a place for the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act on the November 2010 state ballot as “Proposition B.” On November 2, Missouri voters will have the opportunity to vote YES! on Prop B and end some of the worst abuses of dogs routinely committed by puppy mills in their state.
What Is Prop B?
Proposition B (the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act) will vastly improve the lives of dogs in commercial breeding operations in Missouri. It will limit the number of breeding dogs to 50 per facility and require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each breeding dog under their care with basic humane animal care, including:
Sufficient food and clean water;
Necessary veterinary care;
Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend their limbs;
Regular exercise; and
Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
“While dog fighting and other blood sports often dominate headlines, puppy mills are just as insidious a form of animal cruelty,” says Ed Sayres, President and CEO of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. “This joint effort and ballot initiative is a crucial step in combating the horrific cruelty perpetuated by many commercial breeders. This measure will provide man’s best friend the opportunity to breathe fresh air and feel sunlight on their face; meeting these very fundamental needs should be unquestioned.”
Dogs at puppy mills typically receive little to no medical care, live in squalid conditions with no exercise, socialization or human interaction, and are confined inside cramped wire cages for life. They must endure constant breeding cycles, and their offspring are sold in pet stores, online and directly to consumers with little to no regard for the dog’s health, genetic history or future welfare.
If you’re a Missouri citizen, please vote YES! on Prop B on November 2 and transform your state from the “Puppy Mill Capital of America” to a national leader in puppy mill reform.
Don’t live in Missouri, but still want to help? You can make a difference in the lives of countless dogs by contributing a donation to support Prop B. Visit www.yesonpropb.com to donate today!
U.S. House Votes to Prohibit Sale and Distribution of Crush Videos
On Wednesday, July 21, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 416-3 to pass H.R. 5566, the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010. The nearly unanimous affirmative vote, as well as the fact that 262 representatives attached their names to the bill as cosponsors, makes this a decisive victory for animals—especially considering that the bill was introduced only one month ago.
Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced H.R. 5566 in response to the Supreme Court’s April ruling that the original Crush Act, a 1999 federal law banning the creation, sale and possession of materials depicting genuine acts of animal cruelty, is unconstitutional and overbroad in its scope. The Crush Act had succeeded in curbing commercial trade of “crush” fetish videos, which generally depict a woman’s feet as they crush to death small animals such as rodents and kittens. Now, in the absence of any enforceable federal law, this horrific underground industry is on the ascent.
H.R. 5566 amends the Crush Act to prohibit distributing, selling or offering to distribute or sell any depictions of animals being crushed, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or burned where such actions are illegal. Rep. Gallegly reportedly worked with law and constitutional scholars when drafting the bill to ensure that its language is narrowly tailored to be able to withstand strict First Amendment challenges.
Legislation of this kind must pass both chambers of Congress to become U.S. law—and so far, a companion bill to H.R. 5566 has not been introduced in the Senate. Congress will soon enjoy a month-long recess; upon its return in September, the ASPCA will encourage the Senate to take up the Crush Videos Act of 2010. The current federal legislative session (the 111th United States Congress) ends on January 3, 2011, so it is vital that the Senate act with the same speed and resolve demonstrated by the members of the House of Representatives.
We will alert ASPCA Advocacy Brigade subscribers when a Senate version of this bill is introduced, so please join the Brigade today and don’t miss any breaking news about the progress of this and other animal-related legislation.
We hear the cries all the time, “We need more government regulation. More laws! More oversight!”, when in fact what we should be crying is, “Enforce the EXISTING laws!”
Really people, do we need any more laws on the books? Take the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). According to a recent posting on the ASPCA site, “Earlier this week, the Office of the Inspector General released a report detailing the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) lax and ineffective enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) against licensed large-scale dog breeders and brokers known as puppy mills. As part of the investigation, auditors visited 81 facilities and reviewed records documenting 28,443 violations over a two-year period. http://www.aspca.org/news/national/05-28-10.html#1
These puppy mill puppies were all living in the same cage
Despite regular inspections, inhumane conditions continued. It was found at an Oklahoma mill, that even though 5 dogs were found dead and other dogs were becoming cannibals due to suffering from starvation, no action was taken by investigators. Twenty-two other dogs died as a result of their non-action.
The ASPCA continues their nationwide investigations. They also support the enactment of a citizens-sponsored legislation, Missouri Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act (http://www.aspca.org/blog/landmark-mo-puppy-mill.html). The legislation has its merits as it calls for substantially improving the lives of dogs by requiring large-scale breeding operations to provide sufficient food and clean water, necessary veterinary care, adequate housing, space and exercise. The Animal Welfare Act does not really address those issues. It deals more with licensing of large scale dealer (breeders), pet stores, exhibitors and the like it does not require smaller breeders (those that don’t earn a substantial income from the breeding of animals) to be licensed. It also does not deal with the conditions under which these animals should live (though it does state that they should be treated humanely, but that is an open door for interpretation). The Missouri Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act addresses that problem.
Had the original law been written correctly and with deeper foresight and thought, the Missouri Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act would not been needed. Would it have been so hard to include in the AWA exactly “what” is considered humane conditions (or what inhumane conditions are?) All that would be needed is enforcement of the existing law. Why is it that our legislators cannot do it right the first time? Are they so caught up in their legalese that they can’t see the forest for the trees?
H.R. 4733—Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act
Sponsors: Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) and Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) ASPCA Position: Support Action Needed: Please email your U.S. representative and urge him or her to support the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.
Recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Diane Watson and Rep. Elton Gallegly, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (H.R. 4733) is a federal bill that would require the U.S. Government to purchase animal products only from entities that do not keep animals in gestation crates, veal crates or battery cages. Since almost all major packers and distributors do business with the federal government, this legislation would have a significant impact and dramatically improve animals’ living conditions in many farms across the nation.
In order to sell to the federal government, producers would be required to meet minimum humane standards (they would have two years from the date of the Act’s enactment to do so). Their animals would have to be provided with adequate space to stand up, lie down and turn around freely without any impediments, including tethers, and without touching the sides of their enclosures. Animals must also be able to fully extend all limbs without touching the sides of their enclosures—and in the case of egg-laying hens, fully spread both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or another hen.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declared an important federal anti-cruelty law known as the “Crush Act” (18 U.S. Code Section 48) unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. The Crush Act banned the creation, sale and possession of materials depicting genuine acts of animal cruelty where such acts are illegal. The Court made it clear that its major concern was the broadness of the law’s language, which could make the law applicable in many circumstances not intended by its authors.
While the ASPCA is disappointed with the Court’s decision, we are moving forward! Representative Elton Gallegly of California has acted quickly and introduced a bill to amend the law. H.R. 5092 will make the Crush Act’s language more specific and resolve the over-breadth concerns raised by the Supreme Court.
Passage of H.R. 5092 will help prevent a revitalization of the crush video industry. The original Crush Act was passed with little opposition—help us ensure that this revision passes, too.
They say you can judge a society by how they deal with the elderly and the unborn. But, I also believe that how a society treats other creatures is also paramount to the fabric of that society. And this is why I was not surprised by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down the “Crush Act”. The “Crush Act,” is a 1999 federal law banning the creation, sale and possession of materials depicting genuine acts of animal cruelty (http://www.aspca.org/news/national/04-23-10.html#1) . It was an 8-1 decision with the lone dissenting vote coming from Justice Alito. According to BusinessWeek.com, Justice Alito said the ruling effectively legalized the sale of crush videos and “is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production.” He pointed out that the animals in crush videos “are living creatures that experience excruciating pain.” We are a society in decline.
Kitten
In case you are not familiar with what a “Crush” video is, let me explain (and this is not pretty): A crush video (usually posted on the internet) depicts extreme cruelty to animals. The perpetrator’s face is usually blocked in these videos (hmm . . . why you ask? Obviously because they know what they are doing is horrendous and don’t want to be identified). Small animals, (rabbits, hamsters, tortoises, quail, chicken, ducks, frogs, snakes, and even cats) are video taped while being tortured (including being burned, drowned and having nails hammered into them) and crushed. Typically the animals are burned with cigarettes, nailed to the floor, or hurt in some other manner before being killed by women in high heeled shoes. These videos sell anywhere from $20 – $300 over the internet.
According to the ASPCA site, “The Crush Act was designed to stop the commerce of crush videos and other depictions of illegal acts of animal cruelty “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.” The act depicted did not have to be illegal where it was filmed, only where the resulting product was sold. (Robert) Stevens, who marketed videos of dog and hog-dog fighting—some of which he filmed overseas—was the first person convicted under the Crush Act.”
With the repeal of the law, Mr. Stevens and others like him are free again to market their despicable wares. The Supreme Court’s decision stated in the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the court attributed its decision “to the law being both unconstitutional and (sic) overbroad”. They have basically said that the law imposed upon First Amendment Rights. Excuse me? What part of free speech does watching a defenseless animal being tortured and subsequently crushed to death (under a stiletto heel) fall into?
The fight won’t stop here, and the ASPCA is hoping that the courts will draft new legislation with more narrowly drafted legislation to specifically target crush and animal fighting videos. Solicitor Generals for both the Bush and Obama Administrations have pushed this case forward. And we are heartened that26 state Attorneys Generalhave filed a friend of the court brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Third Circuit’s ruling, with not a single Attorney General taking the opposite stance (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/09/crush-videos.html).
